Black managers face "hidden resistance"

[Dr_Pangloss]

How many black players/former players have the qualifications, experience and desire to be a football manager?

 

There's obviously not many black managers in league football, but perhaps that reflects the sheer lack of black candidates going in for management jobs? 

 

It's lazy to point to the proportion of black managers in league football without some conception of how many candidates are black.

[HanoiVillan]

 

 

 

People seem to be misunderstanding what the Rooney Rule is - it doesn't force you to appoint a black manager, merely to interview one. There's no pressure to award that person the job.

I don't think people have misunderstood. It's just the rule isn't fair. Why should a black person have an interview if there are better applicants? For example a company may have ten applicants for a job, but only want to interview five. You'd filter five out based on cv's. If the worst cv is held by the only black applicant, why should thry still get an interview because of their colour?

 

 

And they can't interview 6 candidates instead of 5 because . . . . . . . . . . ?

 

 

So would you advocate interviewing someone based on their ethnicity only in order to tick a box when you have no intention of giving them the job because there is someone you consider better qualified or matched?

In football it isn't uncommon for clubs not to interview multiple people, how many people do you think United interviewed before appointing LVG? Or how many did Chelsea interview before appointing Jose for his second spell?

Do you honestly think both clubs should have interviewed Sol Campbell or John Barnes or any other former black player in order to comply with this rule?

 

 

Firstly, I wasn't the person who suggested the 'Rooney Rule', I was commenting on how it works. Maybe it wouldn't work in the Premier League, probably for the reason stated in the second paragraph above about clubs not interviewing multiple people.* But I disagree that there is 'no actual evidence that there is a problem'. And I certainly won't criticise Gordon Taylor's complaint, linked in the OP, that the Football League had failed to discuss the rule after promising to do so.

 

*This is another tangential issue. Managers have a lot of power, and owners very little. Despite it seeming like owners run the ship, many know little about football and are easily impressed by previous results. Managers of elite clubs can reach a level of reputation from which it is difficult to fall, which results in 'failing sideways', as in the career of Villas-Boas. 

[HanoiVillan]

think its rubbish if you ask me, If your a good enough candidate you will get the job regardless of your race or religion especially with the money around these days 

 

Looking back through the thread, this is particularly naive, when less than a month ago we were looking at emails and text messages between the manager and the head of recruitment at a Premier League club, actually talking about whether to hire players based on their skin colour. 

[Voinjama]

 

On a related note is there a hidden resistance against Asian (Indian Pakistani) player's. Not wishing to take the thread off topic but I guess it's an interesting thought. I can only think of 3 who have played in the Prem. 

 

not that im fully aware and probably way off but maybe its because they have cricket as a more popular sport. For their big populations its hard to think of a single player from either Pakistan or India to make it as a professional

 

 

Zesh Rehmann, Michael Chopra and someone whose name escapes me.

[Jimzk5]

Wasn't there an indian lad at Leeds in the early 2000s, harpal Singh?

[The_Rev]

 

 

 

 

People seem to be misunderstanding what the Rooney Rule is - it doesn't force you to appoint a black manager, merely to interview one. There's no pressure to award that person the job.

I don't think people have misunderstood. It's just the rule isn't fair. Why should a black person have an interview if there are better applicants? For example a company may have ten applicants for a job, but only want to interview five. You'd filter five out based on cv's. If the worst cv is held by the only black applicant, why should thry still get an interview because of their colour?

 

 

And they can't interview 6 candidates instead of 5 because . . . . . . . . . . ?

 

 

So would you advocate interviewing someone based on their ethnicity only in order to tick a box when you have no intention of giving them the job because there is someone you consider better qualified or matched?

In football it isn't uncommon for clubs not to interview multiple people, how many people do you think United interviewed before appointing LVG? Or how many did Chelsea interview before appointing Jose for his second spell?

Do you honestly think both clubs should have interviewed Sol Campbell or John Barnes or any other former black player in order to comply with this rule?

 

 

Firstly, I wasn't the person who suggested the 'Rooney Rule', I was commenting on how it works. Maybe it wouldn't work in the Premier League, probably for the reason stated in the second paragraph above about clubs not interviewing multiple people.* But I disagree that there is 'no actual evidence that there is a problem'. And I certainly won't criticise Gordon Taylor's complaint, linked in the OP, that the Football League had failed to discuss the rule after promising to do so.

 

*This is another tangential issue. Managers have a lot of power, and owners very little. Despite it seeming like owners run the ship, many know little about football and are easily impressed by previous results. Managers of elite clubs can reach a level of reputation from which it is difficult to fall, which results in 'failing sideways', as in the career of Villas-Boas. 

 

 

 

It's a tangential point, but Villas Boas keeps getting jobs because he is a bloody good manager.  He keeps getting the sack because (it appears to me at least) that he is an utter arsehole who nobody likes working with. 

[Mantis]

I don't think anyone on here knows enough about the intimate details of the situation to dismiss the story as 'rubbish'. No one here has access to the HR records of the clubs showing who applied for what role and who was selected and by what criteria.

 

Michael Johnson (ex-blose), in an interview last year, said he applied for 30 coaching roles after being released by Notts County and was only interviewed for three of the roles. This despite him holding the highest UEFA pro licence and having success coaching at youth level. His replacement at Notts County only had the B-licence.

 

He's not calling the game institutionally racist but asked for a level playing field where people holding the same qualifications are treated the same when applying for jobs. I don't think anyone on here would disagree with this?

 

The problem here is that the Rooney rule forces chairmen to not treat people applying for jobs the same (if they have the same qualifications). As far as we know there already is a level playing field - just because some statistics don't match up at the moment doesn't mean there is evidence of institutional racism.

 

As others have said, talent tends to rise to the top in football. I just don't buy into this idea that there is racism against black managers in England when black players are very widely accept in the game. Talented black players certainly don't get held back because of their race so why would that be the case with black managers?

 

It's not even like the Rooney rule would do that much - if there is racism against black managers then clubs would just interview a token black manager as a formality with no intention of giving him the job and if there isn't racism then obviously the measure would be redundant in the first place.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Mantis

[villa_shere]

Are you separating Sol n Barnes from English? Maybe im misinterpreting.

The premier league is the elite league so will attract managers from all over the world. Not sure how many Chileans will apply be managing in league two.

[TrentVilla]

Firstly, I wasn't the person who suggested the 'Rooney Rule', I was commenting on how it works. Maybe it wouldn't work in the Premier League, probably for the reason stated in the second paragraph above about clubs not interviewing multiple people.* But I disagree that there is 'no actual evidence that there is a problem'. And I certainly won't criticise Gordon Taylor's complaint, linked in the OP, that the Football League had failed to discuss the rule after promising to do so.

 

*This is another tangential issue. Managers have a lot of power, and owners very little. Despite it seeming like owners run the ship, many know little about football and are easily impressed by previous results. Managers of elite clubs can reach a level of reputation from which it is difficult to fall, which results in 'failing sideways', as in the career of Villas-Boas. 

 

 

No I know you weren't, I read the thread before I posted I've not suggested that you did. It seemed to me you were more than explaining how it works (for those who needed it), it appeared to me you were of the opinion that it could be practically applied within football. This was implied by your 'could they not interview 6 rather than 5'.

 

It wouldn't work in the PL for the reasons I've stated and various others so its not really worthy of huge debate.

 

On the point that you disagree that there is no evidence of a problem, well if you believe there is evidence of institutional racism within the boardrooms of the 92 clubs would you be kind enough to share it? You might want to share it with those who run the game as well because they certainly don't have any evidence of it. Quoting the number of black managers is, as I've previously stated a statistic not evidence of attitudes or discrimination. There may be widespread racism in the boardrooms of the league but there is no actual evidence to support such a view.

 

If someone promised that the matter would be discussed and it wasn't then I agree that isn't on and Greg Clark will likely have some explaining to do on that one.

I'm not really sure how your last paragraph is in any way relevant.

[TrentVilla]

 

think its rubbish if you ask me, If your a good enough candidate you will get the job regardless of your race or religion especially with the money around these days 

 

Looking back through the thread, this is particularly naive, when less than a month ago we were looking at emails and text messages between the manager and the head of recruitment at a Premier League club, actually talking about whether to hire players based on their skin colour. 

 

 

Its perhaps worth noting though, that despite the unacceptable views expressed by both they still signed the Korean player in question didn't they?

Why did they do that if as it seems they held racist views? Because football is a purely results based business and they thought the player could help them achieve the results they wanted. 

 

Nobody is saying their is no racism in football, clearly there is and I'm sure there is the odd racist chairman or two in the 92 nobody is saying otherwise. But widespread racism throughout the 92 clubs? No chance. Much like with the example at Cardiff with the player, its a results business for chairman too and they will appoint the best manager they can, or the cheapest or the one that will do their bidding or whatever their particular agenda is.

 

So I think its perfectly reasonable to think a racist chairman might appoint a black manager to achieve their aims just in the same way as Moody and Malky signed a Korean player.

[villa_shere]

Firstly, I wasn't the person who suggested the 'Rooney Rule', I was commenting on how it works. Maybe it wouldn't work in the Premier League, probably for the reason stated in the second paragraph above about clubs not interviewing multiple people.* But I disagree that there is 'no actual evidence that there is a problem'. And I certainly won't criticise Gordon Taylor's complaint, linked in the OP, that the Football League had failed to discuss the rule after promising to do so.

*This is another tangential issue. Managers have a lot of power, and owners very little. Despite it seeming like owners run the ship, many know little about football and are easily impressed by previous results. Managers of elite clubs can reach a level of reputation from which it is difficult to fall, which results in 'failing sideways', as in the career of Villas-Boas.

No I know you weren't, I read the thread before I posted I've not suggested that you did. It seemed to me you were more than explaining how it works (for those who needed it), it appeared to me you were of the opinion that it could be practically applied within football. This was implied by your 'could they not interview 6 rather than 5'.

It wouldn't work in the PL for the reasons I've stated and various others so its not really worthy of huge debate.

On the point that you disagree that there is no evidence of a problem, well if you believe there is evidence of institutional racism within the boardrooms of the 92 clubs would you be kind enough to share it? You might want to share it with those who run the game as well because they certainly don't have any evidence of it. Quoting the number of black managers is, as I've previously stated a statistic not evidence of attitudes or discrimination. There may be widespread racism in the boardrooms of the league but there is no actual evidence to support such a view.

If someone promised that the matter would be discussed and it wasn't then I agree that isn't on and Greg Clark will likely have some explaining to do on that one.

I'm not really sure how your last paragraph is in any way relevant.

I dont get this mentality, unless you can prove something it doesn't exist?

You only need to look at Hillsborough, phone hacking scandal, Jimmy Saville n peado scandal to see how the truth can be hidden.

People asks why are there lots of afro Caribbean/african players but no managers. IMO its due to owners not wanting to give them power and positions of authority.

[TrentVilla]

I dont get this mentality, unless you can prove something it doesn't exist?

You only need to look at Hillsborough, phone hacking scandal, Jimmy Saville n peado scandal to see how the truth can be hidden.

People asks why are there lots of afro Caribbean/african players but no managers. IMO its due to owners not wanting to give them power and positions of authority.

 

 

So what, anyone can just make up any accusation and it should be considered to be true without any evidence because of those cases you mention? 

 

Once again, I'm not saying racism doesn't exist in the game. But there is no evidence to prove that it is the reason for the lack of black managers in the game. Hanoi is implying there is so I'd like to know what it is because as I've said statistics isn't it.

[villa_shere]

I dont get this mentality, unless you can prove something it doesn't exist?

You only need to look at Hillsborough, phone hacking scandal, Jimmy Saville n peado scandal to see how the truth can be hidden.

People asks why are there lots of afro Caribbean/african players but no managers. IMO its due to owners not wanting to give them power and positions of authority.

So what, anyone can just make up any accusation and it should be considered to be true without any evidence because of those cases you mention?

Once again, I'm not saying racism doesn't exist in the game. But there is no evidence to prove that it is the reason for the lack of black managers in the game. Hanoi is implying there is so I'd like to know what it is because as I've said statistics isn't it.

So do you suggest not raising the issue and brushing it under the carpet until there is hard evidence and wait for a Big Ron/Malky Makay/ Suarez type issue to come from a chairman until its seriously considered.

[TrentVilla]

So do you suggest not raising the issue and brushing it under the carpet until there is hard evidence and wait for a Big Ron/Malky Makay/ Suarez type issue to come from a chairman until its seriously considered.

 

 

Have I said anything to even remotely suggest that the issue should be brushed under the carpet? No. I've already said Clark will have some explaining to do.

 

I'm utterly against all forms of racism as my posts on here over time will show in reference to topics like those you mention.

 

But that doesn't mean I accept accusations of wide spread racism from someone like Sol Campbell because some of his claims have been utterly daft and done more harm than good because they seemingly were motivated by the desire to sell books. John Barnes also can't be taken seriously given his spells at Celtic and Tranmere.

 

The imbalance in management within the game should change and be encouraged to change but lazy and completely unproven accusations of institutional racism and suggestions of positive discrimination through the Rooney rule aren't in my opinion the way to change attitudes, if indeed they require changing.

 

What is needed is more black managers as trail blazers much like some of the players in the 1970's and that needs to start by encouraging more black ex players onto coaching courses because at the moment they only represent 18% and you would have to assume that figure is far higher now than its been previously.

[HanoiVillan]

 

Firstly, I wasn't the person who suggested the 'Rooney Rule', I was commenting on how it works. Maybe it wouldn't work in the Premier League, probably for the reason stated in the second paragraph above about clubs not interviewing multiple people.* But I disagree that there is 'no actual evidence that there is a problem'. And I certainly won't criticise Gordon Taylor's complaint, linked in the OP, that the Football League had failed to discuss the rule after promising to do so.

 

*This is another tangential issue. Managers have a lot of power, and owners very little. Despite it seeming like owners run the ship, many know little about football and are easily impressed by previous results. Managers of elite clubs can reach a level of reputation from which it is difficult to fall, which results in 'failing sideways', as in the career of Villas-Boas. 

 

 

No I know you weren't, I read the thread before I posted I've not suggested that you did. It seemed to me you were more than explaining how it works (for those who needed it), it appeared to me you were of the opinion that it could be practically applied within football. This was implied by your 'could they not interview 6 rather than 5'. (1)

 

It wouldn't work in the PL for the reasons I've stated and various others so its not really worthy of huge debate. (2)

 

On the point that you disagree that there is no evidence of a problem, well if you believe there is evidence of institutional racism within the boardrooms of the 92 clubs would you be kind enough to share it? (3) You might want to share it with those who run the game as well because they certainly don't have any evidence of it. Quoting the number of black managers is, as I've previously stated a statistic not evidence of attitudes or discrimination. (4) There may be widespread racism in the boardrooms of the league but there is no actual evidence to support such a view.

 

If someone promised that the matter would be discussed and it wasn't then I agree that isn't on and Greg Clark will likely have some explaining to do on that one.

I'm not really sure how your last paragraph is in any way relevant. (5)

 

 

I've numbered the points to make it easier to respond to them. 

 

(1) My point in asking why not interview 6 people when you could interview 5 was to stress that it's not a particular burden. The quote I was responding to suggested that the Rooney Rule was a bad idea because if you had 5 interview candidates, you would have to remove (presumably the weakest) one and interview a BME candidate instead. It's fair to say this isn't going to keep me up at night. As easily solved problems go, you can obviously simply interview all 5 of the original ones plus one BME one, or remove the weakest of the original selection and interview 4 white candidates and 1 BME one. This really isn't that much of a disaster, you can only appoint one of the five at the end of the day anyway. 

 

(2) Fair enough, that's your opinion, but it is just an opinion. Gordon Taylor, for one, obviously feels differently. 

 

(3) Obviously I personally have no evidence, neither being a black footballer, nor a football club boardroom member. Several black players have made statements to this effect. You're not impressed by them, fair enough, but I have no problem with the issue being looked at and investigated fully. 

 

(4) To be clear, I haven't quoted the number of black managers at any point during this discussion. The % of black players trying to earn coaching badges is obviously more relevant. If that number is indeed 18%, then that's clearly encouraging, as that's a lot higher than in the recent past, which is great news. I suppose we'll see how many get jobs and where they get them at, that seems like the best test for the future. 

 

(5) It wasn't very clear, my apologies. My point was that football clubs would be better off interviewing multiple candidates anyway, rather than making snap decisions like the examples you quoted. I believe that clubs don't interview multiple candidates many times because they're scrambling to obtain the biggest 'name' who is currently employed, without planning for the future or listening to what the different candidates visions for the team are. 

 

Overall, I'm not especially in favour of the Rooney Rule as opposed to anything else, I'm in favour of investigating the issue properly and not automatically brushing away suggestions that racism may be a factor just because one or two people I don't like have made that argument. I also think people are hugely overreacting to the Rooney Rule suggestion, which may or may not be impractical, but doesn't impose any particularly onerous requirements on clubs and would probably make little observable difference in the short term. 

[lapal_fan]

We all know, at the end of the day that black people are just rubbish at managing football teams.  They've tried and failed, and it's purely down to the colour of their skin and their heritage..

 

[TRS-T]

On a related note is there a hidden resistance against Asian (Indian Pakistani) player's. Not wishing to take the thread off topic but I guess it's an interesting thought. I can only think of 3 who have played in the Prem. 

 

Yan Dhanda is an Indian Brummie who plays for Liverpool (poached from West Brom.)

 

He plays for England U17.

 

Maybe he could become the first Asian to play for England.

[hoaxn]

I can't help but think of this whenever Sol Campbell is mentioned during a conversation about racism.
 

 

This does not mean I'm rubbishing the idea that there is racism in football. I haven't got enough knowledge on the subject to weigh in. I'm just rubbishing the idea that Sol Campbell has a valid argument. About anything.

[Rob182]

Even the chaps from Cool Runnings had a white coach. Corruption is everywhere.

[TrentVilla]

I've numbered the points to make it easier to respond to them. 

 

(1) My point in asking why not interview 6 people when you could interview 5 was to stress that it's not a particular burden. The quote I was responding to suggested that the Rooney Rule was a bad idea because if you had 5 interview candidates, you would have to remove (presumably the weakest) one and interview a BME candidate instead. It's fair to say this isn't going to keep me up at night. As easily solved problems go, you can obviously simply interview all 5 of the original ones plus one BME one, or remove the weakest of the original selection and interview 4 white candidates and 1 BME one. This really isn't that much of a disaster, you can only appoint one of the five at the end of the day anyway. 

 

(2) Fair enough, that's your opinion, but it is just an opinion. Gordon Taylor, for one, obviously feels differently. 

 

(3) Obviously I personally have no evidence, neither being a black footballer, nor a football club boardroom member. Several black players have made statements to this effect. You're not impressed by them, fair enough, but I have no problem with the issue being looked at and investigated fully. 

 

(4) To be clear, I haven't quoted the number of black managers at any point during this discussion. The % of black players trying to earn coaching badges is obviously more relevant. If that number is indeed 18%, then that's clearly encouraging, as that's a lot higher than in the recent past, which is great news. I suppose we'll see how many get jobs and where they get them at, that seems like the best test for the future. 

 

(5) It wasn't very clear, my apologies. My point was that football clubs would be better off interviewing multiple candidates anyway, rather than making snap decisions like the examples you quoted. I believe that clubs don't interview multiple candidates many times because they're scrambling to obtain the biggest 'name' who is currently employed, without planning for the future or listening to what the different candidates visions for the team are. 

 

Overall, I'm not especially in favour of the Rooney Rule as opposed to anything else, I'm in favour of investigating the issue properly and not automatically brushing away suggestions that racism may be a factor just because one or two people I don't like have made that argument. I also think people are hugely overreacting to the Rooney Rule suggestion, which may or may not be impractical, but doesn't impose any particularly onerous requirements on clubs and would probably make little observable difference in the short term. 

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply, its nice to have a reasoned debate even if ultimately we won't end up in agreement.

In regards to your first point, as I've already pointed out the reality of football is that they often don't have an interview process. I take your point that perhaps they should and in an ideal world I'm sure they would but its just not going to happen unless clubs limit themselves to only interviewing managers that are out of work. For that and other reasons already stated, the Rooney rule, regardless of if it is needed or not simply doesn't fit the culture of football or managerial appointments and I don't see it ever being introduced for that reason.

 

On the second, yes obviously some will think differently including Gordon Taylor but this is the same guy who stuck up for Suarez. 

 

With the 3rd, I'm glad you accept that their is no actual evidence in the public domain despite some seemingly suggesting that the lack of black managers is in itself evidence of widespread racism at board room level. I'm really not sure how an investigation would work or what it would investigate it isn't as if we've not had black managers in the PL or like all chairman are middle age white English UKIP voters. We've had Jewish owners of clubs, we've had Indian owners of clubs we've people like Tony Fernandes at QPR.

 

The number of black coaches currently taking qualifications is 18%, it was a stat quoted in most of the articles carrying Taylor's opinion. I agree its a positive sign and I agree we should see how that transfers into managerial positions, I think we should do that before accusations of institutional racism are banded around.

 

I'm certainly not dismissing the notion that racism still exists in football, we've had too many examples in recent years to think that and sadly it is still very common in many walks of life. I just don't think that the accusation levelled by Taylor or the likes of Sol or Barnes are based on much more than suspicion, money and bitterness in that order in regards those three. I also don't think he Rooney rule would be onerous for clubs and would see black candidates interviewed to tick a box, I don't see it being something that would change anything.